It's Already Starting

Yesterday a reporter called and read to me a statement made by Secretary of Education Rod Paige, saying, in effect, that he knew Trent Lott, Senator Lott was a friend of his, and Trent Lott was no racist. That's a very generous defense by Secretary Paige, I said, and he may well be right (I don't know Trent Lott personally). Such a spirit of forgiveness does Secretary Paige proud. But it's mostly beside the point. The issue is whether someone who has said what Senator Lott has said has the credibility on civil-rights issues to be the Senate's Majority Leader. And the answer to that question is obviously no. It's not as if Lott made remarks that only the hypersensitive would twist out of context into something offensive; his remarks are quite reasonably read and interpreted as being racist, and will be so used against his party.

It's already starting, of course. Not only will Lott be tarred, but his whole party will be, and so, by extension, will the positions his party and conservatives and others have taken - even when they are demonstrably not racist.

The front page of The Washington Post Friday has an article headlined "Lott Has Moved Little on Civil Rights Issues: Analysts Say Remarks, Record Consistent." Predictably, the Post has collected all of Lott's past comments and votes on anything related to race. Equally predictably, it includes, along with Lott's genuinely troubling statements, other positions he has taken that have nothing to do with discrimination - or are actually antidiscrimination - but are at odds with the agenda of the civil rights establishment.

Thus, Lott has opposed busing, said nice things about federalism and the Constitution, and opposed racial quotas (as encouraged in a 1990 civil-rights employment bill, which Lott voted against and President Bush vetoed). Well, we can now see that all that is consistent with a racist agenda, can't we?

Because Lott took those positions, and Lott is a racist, then that proves that the positions are racist, right? Of course not, but this is what we will be up against for the next several years, now that Senator Lott has given the Left a big stick to hit him and his party over the head with.

Consider just one concrete example. Between now and January 16, the Bush administration will have to decide whether to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court opposing the use of racial and ethnic preferences in university admissions. There's no doubt that any decent conservative lawyer - and every lawyer in the chain of command in the administration is a decent conservative lawyer - would conclude that it ought to do so. The fear has always been that political gurus at the White House might get cold feet.

Will the Lott matter warm their toes any? Of course not, and to the contrary. Now they will worry that a decision by the White House to oppose admissions quotas will be bundled up with the Lott scandal and trumpeted as proof that the President has shown his true colors, joining those who, in their heart of hearts, would turn back the clock on civil rights and resegregate our universities.

Let me hasten to add that the gurus would be incorrect; the received wisdom among Republican political experts that no black or Latino can be convinced that quotas are wrong, is wrong. But my point is that having Senator Lott as Majority Leader is going to strengthen the hand of those who insist that, if the President or any Republican opposes the civil rights establishment, they are digging themselves into hopeless hole. It is, then, conservatives who should most want Senator Lott to step down, and liberals who are praying that he won't.

He's not worth saving.

Call me old fashoined, but I favor saving him because it's the right thing to do.

This Chicken Little routine from our pundits is wearing thin. This uproar is going be ancient history inside of a few months. Has everyone forgotten that the GOP, as a party, had a favorable rating in the 30's immediately after impeachment. We went on two years later to fight the party in power to a draw during a time of peace and roaring prosperity.

Trent Lott is one of ours and he does not deserve this. Gut check time, people!

With all the brew-ha-ha about a comment made by Trent Lott on behalf of his elderly counterpart, no one seems to see the bigger picture. This is an old-time democratic party ploy to splinter the republican party.

If on day one republicans all chimed FIRST about the comment, stating their position on media interpretation of a COMMENT made by Lott, - supporting his right to make that comment via one of our constitutional rights - the democrats would not be playing politics with this one. Freedom of speach is still one of our rights, right? Republicans should be screaming about how the democratic party platform is based on a freedom of speach policy that means you can say what you want, unless it is something they do not want to hear.

The bottom line is that segregation was a failed policy created by politicians to exploit a group of people into funding a federal bureaucracy to implement and maintain it. Integration and its laws were also politically designed to exploit a group of people into funding another bureaucracy to maintain and implement the new integration policies. Wake up people. The taxpayer is still being exploited and forced to fund raced based political agendas.

Both the segregation and integration were designed to help victims created by politicians in order for them to create news, and secure votes. Segregation and integration are race-based social experiments that were destined to fail. They only created more ways for politicians to exploit taxpayers.

There is only one race. It is human. Mankind, like birds, cats, dogs, and all other life on this planet, comes in different species. Politicians do not appreciate this fact, and advance themselves on the premise that one type of man or culture or means-tested group are more deserving than the guy next door. This only cultivates the attitude of misunderstanding and mistrust. The exploited taxpayer comes in all colors - but no one in the media or political circus wants to focus on this point. In this country, no matter who you are - from Bill Gates to the guy working at the gas station - if you pay taxes, you work for "da man".

Republicans should be screaming the truth, rather than coverning it up. Freedom of speach - Mr. Lott is entitled to his comment and/or opinion. I may not like what he says, but I would defend his right to say it. Why wouldn't his peers?

This isn't a free speech issue. Nobody's going to send Lott to jail for what he said. Nor does it have anything to do with the Democrats, who can be expected to exploit it no matter what we do. It's about how Republicans/conservatives see ourselves. By retaining Lott in a leadership position after he's expressed his preference for the policies of Dixiecrat segregationists circa 1948, we tacitly endorse his preference. Lott doesn't speak for me, and I don't want him as my leader . Other than that, he's free to say whatever the hell he wants - it's just his opinion.

"Trent Lott is one of ours and he does not deserve this."

It is childish to make ones own behavior contingent upon the behavior of another. (ie: Oh yeah!!! Well he started it!!)

However, I cannot seem to forget(or get past) how elected Republicans, such as Trent Lott, abandoned me when Clinton was convincing my neighbor that I wanted to starve their children. Lott did not step up to the plate for me then; & I damned well deserved him to.

Clintons promotions of hate were infuriating, but came from already identified scum. After strongly representing Republicans for years, it was quite a shock to not enjoy any reciprocation. You can only be hurt by the ones you love.

Despite being childish, I cannot find the passion to rush to his defense now.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.